No Hitler--Stalin Then Invades?

When the Germans entered the Soviet Union, they entered the Baltic States and (former) Eastern Poland. So yes, in these territories it's not surprsing they were welcomed as liberators.

The rest of the nation? Not so much
When the Germans entered the Ukraine, the Ukrainians, Rose up and declared a Independent Ukrainian Republic.
 
For the record, the Finns thought the Germans displayed a lack of iniative on the tactical level and were a bit hidebound.

During the Continuation War, the Finnish troops in Lapland were astonished how inept the Germans, for all their blitzkriegin' superiority, were in winter warfare. And this is German Gebirgstruppen were talking about.

I'm just saying the Soviets aren't this joke army everyone thinks they were. There's a reason they kicked ass and took Berlin.

I agree. The Winter War and the opening stages of Barbarossa make the Red Army seem much weaker than it actually was. Any army (not from the Nordic countries) would have been in a world of hurt trying to conduct offensive operations by a heavily mechanized force during the winter '39-'40 along the Finnish border. I could see for example the Italians failing even more spectacularly, and even the French and the British might have looked pathetic.

The Finnish troops were not magically enhanced or the Finnish commanders superbly talented. They were prepared and competent for those conditions, that is all. There is, for example, a reason why the US winter warfare training and equitment was overhauled in the postwar period by a group of former Finnish officers, called "Marttinen's men", led by Alpo Marttinen, who retired from the US Army as a Colonel.
 
During the Continuation War, the Finnish troops in Lapland were astonished how inept the Germans, for all their blitzkriegin' superiority, were in winter warfare. And this is German Gebirgstruppen were talking about.

You'll be hard pressed to find a people more suited to cold weather warfare than the Fins, a people who find Moscow in Winter to be a pleasant place to escape their own meteorological misery.

Anywhoo. The Soviet Offensive idea is certianly not feasible in '39, but by '41 or '42 the Soviet Military should have recovered in part from the purges and have enough material for a medium sized war, especially if they had a smaller war like the Winter War or a Baltic war to reveal some of the cracks in their armor.

If they decide to move into Poland, they'd be in for a considerable fight, but building up for a while should give them the advantage, even if Romania and Czechoslovakia come in on their side. England and France would really like to support the Poles in this situation, but the French people would be very unkind to a war that would sap up manpower and the British would be in an awkward logistical position. This would be exaggerated by the Germans who, while not wanting a boarder with the Soviets, would show distaste for the Allies gaining an ally in Poland. The Germans would remilitarize and even send aid to Poland, but would protest the Allies putting boots on the ground. The remilitarization would also make the French more likely to turtle. (This is assuming a democratic, Capitalistic Germany)

As for Japan, the Russians would certianly win and get Korea and Manchuria. Japan just doesn't have the army to win a war with China and a war with Russia. But the biggest problem with that plan would be China and what would happen after the war. If the Russians enter the war too early the Nationalist Chinese would be strong enough to make a serious protest over the USSR keeping Manchuria, and that could very well spark another (much more costly) war. The Russians would have to wait long enough so the Nationalists are weakened by war and the Communists strengthened by Aid enough so Stalin could either hand Manchuria over to the communists, or keep it while they both brain each other. But again, eventually there would be peace and eventually it would be a very sore issue that would lead to a war the USSR did not want.

There is another option nobody has mentioned yet, and that is Persia. The British would, of course, be outraged because the action would open up India and the Middle East to the USSR. But the problem (from the British perspective) is that there wouldn't be very much they could do about it. If it comes down to a land war between the British and the Russians, the Russians would almost certianly win in a '41, '42 scenario. So in this case, I don't see the British going to war over Persia because if they did, they'd probably lose Iraq and the important Oil Fields there. They would probably pull a Neville, swallow their pride, and try building up as fast as they possibly could before the Russians consolidate their gains and look elsewhere.
 
Last edited:
Anywhoo. The Soviet Offensive idea is certianly not feasible in '39, but by '41 or '42 the Soviet Military should have recovered in part from the purges and have enough material for a medium sized war, especially if they had a smaller war like the Winter War or a Baltic war to reveal some of the cracks in their armor.

If we think in OTL WW II sense, a Soviet attack during Spring or Summer 1940 would have been politically a smashing success. Hitler would have been seen as an incompetent fool fighting a two-front war, and if Soviet Attack would have been timed with Fall Gelb the vast majority of German Army would have been already engaged in a fight. Even if Germans would have finished the first part of Fall Gelb as in OTL, they would not have dared to finish up France. Similarly, French forces would need vast rebuilding effort before being able to even consider ejecting Germans from their own soil, Belgium and the Netherlands.

Poland is not Finland, and Soviet tactics would have suited Polish terrain far much better than Finnish terrain. Similarly, German army in 1940 was not the Finnish Army of 1939-1940, it's reservist units were comparatively badly equipped and ill trained.

The Soviet ability to carry on the initial operation further, is of course a question mark, but should not be seen as impossible task as German forces in the east were extemely weak. (18 divisions of which all were reserve formations, 9 of which were even Landwehr divisions. All these were tied in security tasks.)

Even more importantly, USSR would not have to worry about Hungarian, Romanian and Finnish forces, thus effectively protecting it's flanks.

I think that in an ultimately worst case scenario the Soviet offensive would be stopped somewhere in Poland while Hitler gambles and finishes up France. However, Germans would not be in position to make a counterattack before Spring 1941 as they would have to redeploy, and above all, refit their forces. Germans would be denied from using Polish resources. At sea Soviet Navy would be in vastly better situation as it's Baltic bases would not be overrun, thus probably cutting German naval transportation in the Baltic or at very least making Seelöwe or any German naval operation in the Atlantic inconveivable.

So, in any case this is better than OTL situation for Soviets in 1941. Or are there good counterarguments?
 

hammo1j

Donor
Could Stalin, in this situation, consider his position safe enough to grab Finland and the Baltics, maybe even parts of Poland? Could it well seem that both Britain and France have much higher priorities than defending the Baltic states? As in OTL Stalin would expect Baltic armies to fall quickly to a Red Army unblemished by the failure of the Winter War, making the Soviet rule in those countries a fait accompli before the European powers would have time to react.

The above is a very good analysis.

I think that the modus operandi of the spread of communism was to spread discontent and foment revolution in a sector of the target nation. Stalin could then take advantage of any situation that arose since he would still maintain tight control over his own people.

Expect support for Revolutionary groups with training, weapons and cash as with the IRA and Scargill's miners OTL.

There would be a very good chance that without Communism being discredited a sufficient rump of the Western European nations could be turned into Communist or very left leaning states which the USSR would gradually take control of under the auspice of protecting them from the threat of facism.
 
I can't really see Stalin daring to look west without a Molotov- Ribbentrop agreement. Without Hitler Stalin knew that if he touched Finland or the baltic States, or any other state he would get all of Western Europe pointing their guns at him.

What guns? Without Hitler to worry about - why has the 'West' re-armed!?
That doesn't mean that Stalin would consider doing a full scale invasion of Europe no, but as OTL a bit here, and a bit there.
 
Top